Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

N.C. PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY SEEKS NEW RULEHIV test may be required before birthsGoal is to put an end to disease transmission from mother to childMARTHA QUILLIN(Raleigh) News & Observer

The AIDS baby -- that tender symbol of an indiscriminate illness that could attack the innocent as well as the reckless -- is becoming a medical memory.

Down to just a handful of cases each year of infants born with HIV, state health officials now want to take a final step to eradicate such cases, stopping transmission of the virus from mother to child.

This week, the N.C. Commission for Public Health, which makes rules for medical practitioners in the state, voted to require HIV/AIDS testing in any woman who comes to a medical facility ready to deliver and for whom there is no record of an HIV test during pregnancy.

The rule change must be approved by the N.C. Rules Review Commission. It's unclear when it would take effect.

Last year, just one baby was born in the state with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

"Our goal is to not have any babies born in our state with HIV infection," N.C. Health Director Leah Devlin said. "There is no excuse for it. There are a lot of available medications and other things we can do that can reduce the transmission to infants, and we need to put in place every tool that we have to do that."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, about 150 infants are born in the U.S. each year with human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS.

Mothers with HIV/AIDS can transmit the disease to their children in the womb, during birth and through breast-feeding. Without medical intervention, an infected mother has about a 25 percent chance of giving the disease to her baby.

If doctors know the mother is infected, they can reduce the chance of transmission to the baby to less than 3 percent by giving the mother antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy, performing a Caesarean section instead of a vaginal birth, and preventing breastfeeding.

The CDC says that most cases of newborn HIV/AIDS are a result of a lack of testing, and the agency has recommended that all pregnant women be tested twice -- during the first prenatal visit and again in the third trimester.

Dr. Jeff Engel, the state epidemiologist, says the vast majority of pregnant women in North Carolina get tested for HIV/AIDS, most as part of their routine prenatal care.

Some women don't get adequate prenatal care, however, or decline the testing, which is voluntary.

Agreed that the article seems to be written from a place of ignorance particularly in regards to he terms "AIDS baby" and the reckless moniker of anyone who has contracted HIV not from blood transfusion or birth.

I want to begin by saying that, I normally don't write these types of emails and letters, however after reading the article: "HIV test may be required before births Goal is to put an end to disease transmission from mother to child" by MARTHA QUILLIN, I was compelled.

Though I am sure the reporter writing this article had the best of intentions, I feel her choice of words could have been better selected. I found this article to be biased and highly offensive. As a person with HIV, this article has effectively demeaned and vilified persons with HIV.

Using such terms as "AIDS baby" and "reckless" only adds to the stigma that those of us living with HIV/AIDS are trying everyday to eliminate. By labeling us, me for example as "reckless" continues to fuel the fear and myth that people living with this disease deserve what they get, including this disease. I can tell you honestly, and openly, that I certainly wasn't "reckless" and certainly did not deserve this disease. No one goes out looking for it, and lump me into a general statement and to call me "reckless" is well: reckless in and of it's self. I am extremely upset to read a biased, although you may argue that it isn't biased, but the first sentence of this article set the tone and we see the reporters feelings and opinion bleed through.

I expected better from this paper, but maybe I am just being "reckless" in my expectations.

If this were an OP/ED then I wouldn't have such an issue; however, this is presented as respected journalism when it is nothing more than flame baiting by one of your staff reporters. Intentional or not, the tone and the word choice was and is "reckless".

I think that Ms. Quillin should apologize for her word choice, and talk with HIV + mothers and others infected and affected by this disease. Then maybe she will understand what and how this disease affects us all. Not just the "innocent"!!

It hurts me deeply and angers me to see the lives of 25 million people being mocked in little sentence.

Let me say also, that everyday is a battle living with this disease. Living with the side affects from the anti-viral medication, taking prophylactic medications just to keep the side affects at bay. Not being able to tell people that I have this disease for fear of retribution and discrimination. This article just proves to me just how much education there is to be done. No not from the science of HIV/AIDS but from the human and personal side.

I hope that this note does not fall on deaf ears, although it will not surprise me if it does. I ask you, no I implore you to look inside of yourself and ask the question: "How would I feel if were HIV+ and someone called me "reckless"?

I agree completely and thought the letter was well done. (For the record, multiple persons are called people ) Guess you can't take the editing out of the editor.

This is a problem I have with most so-called "journalism" today. It is rife with opinion, innuendo and a glaring lack of attribution.

OK, so I'm just an old newsman who practiced his trade during a different era, i.e, an old fart.

But, I am fully capable of making up my own mind without some wordsmith trying to colorize a story with less-than-appropriate verbage.

I applaud the subject matter of the story. This is something that has been done in New Mexico for some time and has been very effective.

Quellin's lead and second graph, meant to be an attention grabber, should be rewritten. There are other journalistic tools she could have used to get this point across and grab the reader without resorting to debasing people living with HIV.

Quellin's lead and second graph, meant to be an attention grabber, should be rewritten. There are other journalistic tools she could have used to get this point across and grab the reader without resorting to debasing people living with HIV.

Agreed. She could have at least said:

"The AIDS baby: the ultimate symbol of indiscriminate illness. that could attack the innocent as well as the reckless They were born in the 1980's, 1990's, and even in 2007. In this decade, the statistics have changed for the better. Now down to just a handful of cases each year of infants born HIV-positive, state health officials now want to take..." The words in strikethrough are redundant and they assume the reader doesn't know the meaning of indiscriminate illness.

And yeah, "AIDS baby" isn't tender. "medical memory" isn't tender either. At the very least she could've stuck "reckless" in quotation marks. On second thought - No, that would still fly over any person who already has their mind made up.

Persons...people...tomato...tomawto...let's call the whole thing off! Which is Mark...everyone could use an editor...

I think we all have a responsibility to ourselves to call out these types of things when we see them...and I personally feel that if we ignore it, we are taking a hand in what we are fighting against...

Jeromy- I am so glad you wrote that letter. I got pregnant in 1992, awhile after testing positive. In those days, they didn't have the meds and knowledge they do now. I went to see two OB/GYNs and each one said "AIDS-infested baby." They both told me to get an immediate abortion, which I finally felt I HAD to do. One of my friends also got pregnant around the same time and kept it, and her baby tested negative. I was so upset, I was depressed and cried for days. No one knows how traumatic words can be.....

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow